[ethbr1]

Absolutely! The "How does a bad manager with a good team ever get identified/fired?" problem is something more companies should have an answer to.

That's why I think skip-levels check-ins and direct reports regularly anonymously rating their manager (via HR) should be the starting place at all companies.

Otherwise, toxic (or just underperforming) managers stay in their positions longer than is good for the company.

[ragall]

Most employees are incapable of rating their manager. They can complain or praise, but they're not competent to judge whether the manager is competent.

There's an interesting parallel to the advice often given for "lean" startups, of never taking seriously the customers' feature requests, only their complaints. Most customers know their own pain points but aren't capable of suggesting good general solutions that can be incorporated into a product.

[ethbr1]

> Most employees are incapable of rating their manager. They can complain or praise, but they're not competent to judge whether the manager is competent.

Disagree. I think most employees are qualified to judge whether their manager facilitates or hinders their team's work.

Servant-leader is one (among many competing) valuable manager traits because it does press managers to align part of their focus on enabling their team to get work done, instead of simply taking credit for work their team does without manager involvement.

Sure, you're going to get volatility in direct reports' rankings of their manager (versus an objective truth), but...

(a) You get that with manager rankings of their direct reports too

(b) Individual rankings aren't the signal: the signal is median ratings. If managers have entire teams that universally hate them, that's not noise